Jim Costa

Mr. COSTA

Mr. COSTA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this Republican partisan bill. Just a few days ago, I traveled to San Diego with several of our colleagues to see firsthand how current immigration policy is being enforced. There were children separated from their parents and migrants seeking asylum. Our immigration system is broken, and everybody knows that. And this administration is making a challenging situation worse. Our immigration system needs to be dealt with. Why don't we try sitting down and working together on real bipartisan reform? This is a partisan proposal that holds Dreamers and vulnerable children hostage and does nothing for California farmworkers. What is worse, it builds a $25 billion wall that, by itself, does not provide comprehensive solutions for our border security, which we all believe in. By the way, didn't the President promise that Mexico would pay for this wall? Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to do the right thing. Vote ``no.'' Let's get back to working on bipartisan reform, reform that provides us with the border security we need and fixes our immigration system and respects the dignity and the humanity of aspiring Americans.

Mr. COSTA

Mr. COSTA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I join with my colleagues this afternoon on what is, I think, a very important issue facing our country today, and that is remembering what our common shared values are all about: a Nation of immigrants, past and present. Mr. Speaker, I am deeply disturbed, as is my colleague, Congressman Correa, and others that are here, by the administration's current policy, which we believe tears families apart who are seeking asylum at our borders. That is simply not the American way. These are parents and children fleeing to America, coming here via legal means, seeking refuge for a host of different reasons. And what happens to them now? Children, including infants and toddlers, are taken from their parents' care, and sent to shelters, which we now know are sometimes juvenile detention centers. That is not right. That is not the American way. The parents are sent to detention facilities as well, which may be in the form of Federal prisons. At America's borders, this is happening to families; families who, again, are legally seeking asylum. We have had a whole history and tradition of allowing families who are seeking legal asylum. And what are they fleeing? Well, we know what they are fleeing: domestic violence, rape, murder, and gang violence. If that is not traumatizing enough, now we are talking about separating them and detaining them, and we are not even beginning to consider the sort of natural disasters that have afflicted neighbors of ours. This is an outrageous policy. I think it is morally disgusting and un-American. We are not a nation in terms of our shared values that tears families apart. We never have been. The American family is the foundation of our country. We are not a nation that systematically uses fear and the threat of detention to scare immigrants from trying to legally enter this country and build a better life for themselves and their families for what they might be fleeing. Yes, no one disputes that we need to secure our borders. We must ensure the safety of our Nation. That is our highest priority. We must prevent those who want to do harm to us from entering, whether we are talking about transnational gangs who are engaged in drug trafficking, or in sex trafficking, or in other illegal activities that devastate our communities. We all agree on that. I have consistently voted for improved border security funding and policies. But ripping these families apart like this is not securing our borders. For over a decade, I have been calling for comprehensive immigration reform that includes border security that fixes our broken immigration system, and does it in a way that is fair, just, and works. We had such a proposal in 2013 that the Senate passed 68-32. Sadly, we could not bring it up. It was a bipartisan measure. If we had a strong and comprehensive functioning immigration system, there would be no chance for these disgusting policies to occur, as they are now today. In closing, I stand here today calling on Congress to move on immigration reform, comprehensive immigration reform, that is bipartisan. Let's put an end to these immoral, cruel, and un-American policies. If we can't do that, then let's just try to bring a clean Dream Act to the floor. I guess we will see what comes next week, in terms of what is being proposed. Mr. Speaker, I stand here today for families who are being ripped apart at the borders, for immigrants past and immigrants present, for let us never forget America is a Nation for over 240 years that has been made up of immigrants from all around the world. For the future, and the soul of our country, I ask that we come together and fix this broken immigration system.

Mr. COSTA

Mr. COSTA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about the administration's approach to trade and the pain that we are already feeling due to the shortsighted and poorly-considered decisions that have been made. Since the administration announced its plans in March to use wide- ranging tariffs to address trade imbalances, I have been warning the President and the Nation that this is a wrongheaded approach. So many of my colleagues from both sides of the aisle, I believe, agree. We all want to see American jobs secure and increase opportunities for our economy; that is without doubt. But raising broadly-defined tariffs will do, I believe, just the opposite. We all know, or at least most of us know, that the most likely effect of raising tariffs will be other countries adjusting their trade measures to protect their economies and their industries and their workers. Let's realize that, in the global economy that we live in today, most countries have leverage. I hope the President realizes this. And what happens as a result? We have a trade war. That is where we are going, and I have been saying since March, no one, Mr. Speaker, no one wins in a trade war; which is why both Republicans and Democrats have publicly expressed grave concerns with the administration's tariff-based approach to trade. But beyond the warnings and concerns, Mr. Speaker, we are now feeling the negative impacts of the administration's approach. Without a doubt, our country is beginning to engage in these stages of a trade war. Tariffs, for example, on California agriculture products are already in place. Forty-four percent of California's agriculture economy, which is the number 1 agricultural State in the Nation, 44 percent of it is based upon international trade. Almonds, wine, pistachios, citrus, all face increased tariffs on exports to China, and that is just the start. It is also taking place in Mexico and Canada. I met with a California almond processor yesterday who told me that, as a result of these tariffs, the Chinese buyers are staying away from the table. He told me that this time of the year he usually has sold a significant portion of his harvest to Chinese buyers, but because of the uncertainty of these tariffs he hasn't sold a single pound. Mr. Speaker, the retaliatory tariffs imposed in reaction to this administration's steel and aluminum tariffs are already impacting the California agriculture economy, which, again, 44 percent of it is based upon international trade, and it is hurting our relationships with many of our allies in Europe, as well as our neighbors to the north and to the south. Yes, there are trade imbalances in the global market we live in, and we should address them. There is bipartisan agreement we should address them. But the way to address these trade imbalances is through successful re-negotiation of NAFTA, negotiating trade agreements with our European and Pacific Rim allies. That is the way to deal with the trade imbalances. We cannot address trade imbalances or arrive at mutually beneficial agreements through trade wars, plain and simple. What's more, the President and the Congress must work together on trade agreements. Based upon where we are today, it looks like it will require us in Congress to re-assert our constitutional authority and responsibility to regulate international trade agreements. That is part of our job. This will take hard work, bipartisan negotiations, and serious policy deliberations which, in turn, requires that we overcome our partisan division and come together as America's Congress. I call on my colleagues today to join me in real negotiations, in real bipartisan work, and in the type of policy deliberations that our Nation needs and that America deserves. We can do this and we must do this. Our country currently is being led by this administration into a very real trade war, but it is not too late to stop it, and it is Congress' responsibility, frankly, to say, time out. Let's sit down and work together with our allies in Europe, our neighbors to the north and to the south of us, and in the Pacific Rim, to do what is right, and that is to ensure that we protect American workers, American industries, American agriculture, and, yes, that we don't engage in a trade war that will lead to no good end. We can fix this trade imbalance, and we should, and we must assert ourselves.

Mr. COSTA

Mr. COSTA. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. COSTA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I want to also thank the ranking member and the chair of the committee for allowing us to work with the committee for what is an important amendment. The Denham-Costa amendment would make permanent the existing authority for utility companies to contribute to funds to expedite permit reviews for the Army Corps of Engineers. Expedited permit review reduces project costs and enhances public safety by ensuring that projects are completed faster. It just makes good sense. Projects could benefit from this permanent authority include work to stabilize aging transmission line towers in the San Francisco Bay, replacing natural gas transmission lines over and under waterways, and restoring water delivery systems associated with hydroelectric facilities. A lot of good has come from this amendment. It has broad support from the utility industry and labor unions. I thank the author of this amendment for his good cooperation, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COSTA. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chair of the committee and the ranking member and all of the staff for their support and work on this important amendment. It is a simple amendment to the Water Resources Development Act. Today, as a result of action taken by the Congress in the previous WRDA bills, the Army Corps of Engineers has the authority to accept funds from non-Federal interests to update rules that govern the operations of reservoirs owned and operated by the Corps. Unfortunately, there are a number of facilities that are regulated but not owned by the Corps of Engineers, and previous WRDA bills have failed to provide similar authority to accept funds to update the operations manuals. These manuals are very important as it relates to flood control issues. Although the Corps regulations specify that water operations manuals, including flood-control curves, should be reviewed and updated regularly, the reality is the Corps does not do this because they have got budget constraints. A Government Accountability Office report released in July 2016 found that the Corps-owned projects for revisions to water control manuals are often a lower priority than other operations and maintenance activities, such as equipment repairs, sediment removal, or levee repairs. As a result, the Corps oftentimes does not get to funding these revised water control manuals. This is important. We have floods all across the country, and it is important that these get updated. Non-Corps section 7 projects have an even lower budget priority. The Merced Irrigation District in central California, which I have the honor to represent, is the owner of such a facility called New Exchequer Dam, an important reservoir that has served for decades and decades to provide water supply, flood control benefits for the people of the San Joaquin Valley. The Merced Irrigation District wants to improve the spillway and water storage of Exchequer Dam and Reservoir, and it is going to fund all of the improvements. But it has been prevented from doing so for years because the Corps doesn't have the funding to review and to revise the project's water control manual. As a matter of fact, the last time it was updated was over 30 years ago, which is of concern. So Merced offered--guess what--to pay for the process, but the Corps said, well, they can't do that because they are not legally able to accept the funds. That doesn't make any sense. So this amendment would resolve this by giving the Corps the authority to accept funds to update operation manuals from the owners of all of section 7 private facilities that are, in fact, regulated by the Army Corps of Engineers. So, for the good folks of eastern Merced County, this amendment will provide an opportunity for the Merced Irrigation District to explore the raising of the spillway gates at New Exchequer Dam, therefore increasing flood control protection and, at the same time, increasing the storage capacity of this reservoir that I said has existed for decades to, in some years, another 57,000 acre-feet of water. 57,000 acre-feet of water is an important addition. It is a lifeline--can be--to our way of life in areas like the valley where drought, as many as you have heard about, is an ever-present threat. Every drop of water counts. So I want to thank the cosponsors of my amendment--Representative Denham, Representative Garamendi, and Representative McClintock--for their working together on a bipartisan basis to provide not only tools for the Merced Irrigation District, but all other facilities, entities, local water agencies that have a similar type of project. This is a good, commonsense amendment. I know of no opposition to it. Not seeing anyone else who would like to speak on it, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COSTA

Mr. COSTA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss the situation we are currently facing regarding the House version of the farm bill. The House farm bill, traditionally, for over 40 years, is one of the most bipartisan things that we do here in Congress, Democrats working with Republicans throughout the various regions of America. This is the third farm bill that I have had the opportunity to participate in, working together. So where are we today? We are exactly where we should not be. We are facing a vote this week on a partisan farm bill that is both, in my view, bad policy and divides us even further as a country. This bill does not promote or demonstrate the successful programs, I think, necessary to strengthen our trade in the agricultural sectors across the country. America trades throughout the world, and our agricultural economy is dependent, in large degree, on our ability to produce more food than we can consume; and, therefore, trade becomes very important. American agriculture needs a farm bill that supports and promotes not only trade, but, now perhaps more than ever with looming escalation of a trade war sparked by the administration's efforts with steel and aluminum, we see tariffs taking place on a host of products grown in the Midwest--sorghum, corn, and wheat--and in California potential increases in beef and pistachios and almonds. So that doesn't fare well. This version of the farm bill also does not adequately support the dairy safety net. Of course, our dairy economy is big throughout the Midwest and in California, actually, the largest dairy State in the Nation. Nor does it do enough for our specialty crop farmers who grow the fresh fruits and vegetables that are a part of a healthy diet. California grows half of the Nation's fruits and vegetables. This bill also proposes to make changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, otherwise known as SNAP, which will likely devastate parts of the food program that are working well. This, after all, is America's safety net, and we have a lot of not only children and elderly, but people who are disabled who depend and rely on these important food nutrition programs. We do all believe that able-bodied people should be working, and all of us have the same goal in ensuring that those able-bodied people are self-sufficient. If we want people to become self-reliant, let's give them a SNAP program that does just that. We have 10 pilot projects in 10 different States that are working, and they are to report back next year on what best works to get able- bodied people working and what doesn't work. But this proposal in this House version is doomed to failure, and the House CBO has scored it accordingly. Instead, it will likely cause our SNAP education to create training programs that will collapse, costing billions of dollars, creating a new Federal bureaucracy that was never given a chance to succeed. We should not be in this position, Mr. Speaker. Where should we be? We should be working together, as we have with previous farm bills, Democrats and Republicans, deliberate, negotiating, and, yes, even disagreeing over ideas and approaches, but coming together with important compromises. The farm bill is America's food bill. It is also a national security item. People don't think about it that way, but the ability to produce all for America's dinner table every night the most healthy, nutritious food in the world is a national security issue, I believe. Therefore, we must support our food security and safety for our fellow Americans. Our Nation's food policy must feed Americans and ensure our farmers, our ranchers, and our dairy producers can all be successful. It should not serve some and abandon others, and it should not further divide us as a country. As I have said, this is the third farm bill that I have had the privilege to work on. We have worked through these differences in the past, and we have worked through the challenges. It is my hope that Congress can do this again. But it will not happen if we allow the partisan arm-twisting to ram this bad policy through the House. A vote against the House version of the farm bill is a vote for something better, which is the Senate version, where they are working together, traditionally, in a bipartisan fashion--that is what we should be doing--and not engaging in these partisan games that create bad policy. Therefore, a vote against the current bill on the House version is one that is a good vote, and it is one that protects our past farm policies as they have worked. A ``no'' vote is a vote for more support for our farmers and for our families. It is demanding that Congress do better because we can, and we must, do better. The Senate version is currently the version that I think, ultimately, is going to succeed. I look forward to continue working with our colleagues on the other side--Republicans and Democrats--who are fostering a bipartisan bill--Senator Roberts and Senator Stabenow. I look forward to moving past this version of the farm bill so that we can set aside this outrageous effort in partisan politics and get back to work on America's food bill, a national security issue, to be sure.

Mr. COSTA

Mr. COSTA. Mr. Speaker, we just heard a few moments ago a colleague of ours, Congressman Charlie Dent, who has served with great distinction and honor, a classmate of mine. I simply want to say that he is a role model for all of us in terms of how to legislate in a thoughtful and deliberative fashion, and to reach across the aisle in a way that I think is conducive to getting things done. He certainly is a great example of how we should all reflect in terms of our work here every day. We will miss him, and we wish him the best of luck in his next endeavors. Mr. Speaker, I also want to talk about the challenges that we face in California as it relates to our water needs. The San Joaquin Valley, that I have the honor and privilege to represent, is one of the largest agriculture regions in the entire country, and, therefore, the world. We grow half of the Nation's fruits and vegetables, 70 percent of the world's almonds, 50 percent of the world's pistachios, the number one dairy State in the Nation, and the number one citrus State in the Nation. The list goes on and on and on, over 300 commodities that we have the ability to grow because of an incredible Mediterranean climate, and water, which is the crucible, because we like to say in the Valley that: Where water flows, food grows. Clearly, the ability to have water reliability is so essential to ensuring that we can continue to maintain our agricultural production, which every night puts food on America's dinner table and, therefore, allows American consumers to have the healthiest, the best, nutritious quality of varieties of food and food products at the most economical cost to them and their families anywhere in the world. We are so good at it, in producing food, not only in California, but around the country, American agriculture, that I think sometimes Americans take it for granted, because less than 3 percent of our Nation's population--as in California, less than 3 percent of our State's population--is directly involved in the production of food and fiber. I sometimes feel that the majority of Americans believe that their food comes from a grocery store. Well, it doesn't. I mean, you get it at the grocery store, or you get it at your favorite restaurants, wherever that may be. But before that food gets to the grocery store, or before it gets to those restaurants, it comes from farmers and ranchers and dairymen and -women across this great land of ours, and certainly California plays a key role. We have had difficult, difficult drought periods in California. We had a 6-year prolonged drought that reminded us that the climate continues to change. What impacts we, as people, have on the change of that climate is debated. But clearly we know that we have an impact, and it continues to change. Therefore, to be responsible, we have to plan to ensure that we have adequate water supplies to maintain our agricultural production, for it is the sustenance of life: water. Where water flows, food grows. It is so important, obviously, throughout the country, but critical in maintaining our incredible cornucopia of agricultural production in California. You should understand that 99 percent of our agriculture in California is irrigated. I have, for over 30 years, worked to strengthen the water reliability, not only in the San Joaquin Valley, but throughout California. In a State like California, where we have so many resources and so many cutting-edge technologies, in terms of efficient irrigation methodologies, drip irrigation and conserving and trying to figure out ways in which we can recharge our aquifers, we are using all of the water tools in the water toolbox. When I was in the California Legislature, I authored legislation to create the Kern County Water Bank. I led two successful water bond measures that provided more than $2 billion to improve California's water system and provide for safe, reliable water drinking. We have places in California, and other parts of the country, where our groundwater has gotten contaminated. Therefore, we need to make adjustments to make sure that every American--every Californian--has clean drinking water. In Congress, I have secured approval for the Madera Irrigation District Water Bank, the San Luis Intertie, and the North Valley Regional Recycled Water Project, bringing hundreds and thousands of acre-feet to secure more water, a more reliable supply of water, for the San Joaquin Valley, but also for other parts of California, as well. If we cannot solve the water problems in California, I really am very concerned about the future of our Nation and our planet. Again, we don't think about it, but food is a national security issue. It truly is. We take it for granted. We not only have the ability throughout the country, and in California, to produce enough food for every American, but we produce more than we can consume and, therefore, we export many of our food products throughout the world. But again, with the impacts of climate change, oceans rising, the planet that 2 years ago clicked 7 billion people, by the middle of the century will have 9 billion people. Guess what happens when you add 2 billion more people to the planet? You have to feed them. Therefore, food not only for America, but for the world, is a national security issue. But you can't have that abundant supply of food, that reliable supply of food, unless you have a reliable supply of water. Let me give you some perspective. Two hundred years ago, we had 1.7 billion people on the planet. So, in 200 years, we have gone from 1.7 billion to 7 billion, and by the middle of the century it is estimated that there will be 9 billion people on the planet that, yes, will need food. Only if we have reliable water supplies can we ensure that we have that reliable supply of food. If we can't figure out ways in which to manage our water resources in California--the fifth-largest economy now in the world, a cutting-edge State in technology--if we can't solve our water problems in California, I am truly concerned about other parts of the world that depend upon reliable water supplies to feed their population. Throughout the years that I have been both here and in Sacramento, I have worked on a bipartisan basis to pass water infrastructure improvements for our Nation. The WIIN Act, that we passed some 2 years ago, was signed into law in December of 2016. It was part of an overall effort to provide solutions, using all the water tools in our water toolbox, that will make it more flexible to move water through California's system of waterways--the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta System--in which we can have the flexibility, but still try to deal with the environmental concerns and maintain water quality for our cities, but also provide water for our farmers. In addition to that, provide to the State over $355 million for water infrastructure projects, including matching Federal funds for new surface storage in California: for the Temperance Flat project, for raising the San Luis Reservoir, for creating the Sites Reservoir, and for other important funding purposes in which a Federal authorization will allow us to match both State and local dollars. In all of my time in working to improve the lives of the people of the Valley that I have the honor and privilege to represent, rarely have I been presented with a project that has such obvious potential as the New Exchequer Dam that was built a number of years ago. The water that is currently impounded--actually, it is a dam that was built in the twenties and expanded in the late fifties--provides irrigation for an incredible amount of productive ag land in Merced County. It also allows for groundwater replenishment in many of the nearby communities, and it also provides environmental benefits for fisheries and wildlife refuges downstream from the dam. Recently, the Merced Irrigation District performed a detailed analysis of the hydrology of the watershed upstream from Exchequer Dam, which is the mountains that California has been blessed with--the incredible Sierra Nevada mountain range, over 600 miles in length, 150 miles in width, and mountains that go from 12,000 feet to 14,000 feet-- that provides the snowpack for California. It is Mother Nature's icebox for California. For those of you who are not from California, you should understand that we get all of our moisture in California from November to March. Above 4,000 feet or 5,000 feet, that rain turns to snow. Then, in the springtime, it melts. It comes down, and it fills our rivers and the reservoirs that we have on our rivers, and it allows us to have a supply of water throughout the summer. We don't have any rain in the summer. Recently, this project, as an example, it was determined by the district, the Merced Irrigation District, that if we raised the spillway gates by 8 feet, that Lake McClure, behind this dam, could add an additional 57,000 acre-feet of water. Fifty-seven thousand acre-feet of water is a good additional supply, without impeding Merced's wild and scenic river designation. We maintain that. But, at the same time, we add 57,000 acre-feet of water to the supply. That is important. However, to move forward with raising these spillway gates, the flood control and operations manual for Exchequer Dam must be updated, and that is the responsibility of the Army Corps of Engineers. You should understand that many of these water projects in California, and other States across the country, have multiple purposes. They not only supply water for people, they not only try to benefit the environment, but they also provide water for farmers. At the same time, many of these projects provide hydroelectric power, and they provide flood control protection. So, in this case, when you increase the spillway gates 8 feet, the Army Corps of Engineers has to modify the flood control manual so that when we have heavy storms and rains, as we did a year ago in California, we are able to operate the facility in such a way that also provides flood control protection. Unfortunately, the current manual that is in place was from 1959, when the dam was expanded the second time. Army Corps of Engineers policy requires that flood control manuals be updated, therefore, to reflect the new data and the changes to a project that would occur as a result of raising these gates. In 2017, the Merced Irrigation District wrote the Army Corps of Engineers, requesting a revision of the flood control manual. That is what this legislation that we are introducing will work on. The Army Corps indicated that they could not update the manual at the time, citing budgetary constraints. The Merced Irrigation District proposed to pay for the public process to update the flood control manual, to incorporate this new hydrological data, if, in fact, the gates were raised. The Army Corps responded by saying that it didn't have the legal authority to accept funds for the purpose of a non-Federal Section 7 like this New Exchequer Dam, despite being able to do so for other Army Corps facilities. Thus, the Non-Federal Reservoir Operations Improvement Act legislation that I have introduced would resolve this disparity by allowing the owners of a non-Federal reservoir, in this case, the Merced Irrigation District, that are regulated by the Army Corps to provide protection for flood control, to contribute the funds so that we can update the manual, so that we can, in fact, raise the gates 8 feet, which the Merced Irrigation District is going to pay for, along with their water users--that is how they pay for it--as well as paying the Army Corps of Engineers to update the flood control manual. Now, this sounds like a lot of common sense, doesn't it? I think so. So that is the purpose of this legislation. It is part of a long effort that I have been engaged in to improve the water supply, the water reliability, the water quality, the environmental benefits for the challenges that we face in California as it relates to maintaining the water needs for a State that has 40 million people, the fifth largest economy in the country, the number one agricultural State in the Nation. So we know that with the growing demands, the competing demands on water, that crucible, the critical, absolute must resource to ensure that we can survive as people, so that where water flows, food will grow, that we can maintain the ability as a national security issue to ensure that all Americans have the kind of sustainable, good, quality, nutritious food that is so critical to our diet and to our well-being, that is really what this is all about. This is a local project, but it is a part of a much larger effort that I have been engaged in with my colleagues on a bipartisan basis to address the needs, the long-term needs of California's water supply. That is what is at the heart here. So we will continue to work together. I hope that this legislation will be enacted this year so that the Merced Irrigation District can be able to go ahead and plan and construct the increase of water supply for the needs of the people of Merced County and the surrounding area that will have a multitude of benefits. This is a part of an overall effort that I will continue to be engaged in in Merced County, in Madera County, and in Fresno County, throughout our valley and throughout our State to ensure that, in the long term, in the 21st century, we can count on the fact that we have a long-term water supply for all Californians that will allow us to continue to maintain our agricultural economy and, at the same time, provide water for people who live in the cities, improve our water quality, and ensure, at the same time, that we protect the environment. Those are the goals. It is complicated; it is complex; and it is never easy. Mark Twain supposedly was credited, over 100 years ago, with saying, having spent some time in the West, that it was clear to him that, when we talk about water and water resources and the incredible demands on those water resources, 100 years ago, supposedly Mark Twain said that, in the West, it was clear to him, ``whiskey was made for drinking and water was made for fighting.'' We hope that we won't fight over our water resources but that we will work together on a bipartisan basis to solve these problems. That is what we are sent here to do: to work together on a bipartisan basis to solve a whole host of issues that we deal with. But it is very important that we focus, in this instance, on this legislation by passing a bill that makes a great deal of common sense. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COSTA

Mr. COSTA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate Military Appreciation Month. This is a time that we dedicate throughout the month of May honoring and celebrating those who have served our Nation, sacrificed; those of our military servicemembers, their families, both past and present, because families are a key part of those who have served our Nation. Their courage and their sacrifice, therefore, should never, ever be forgotten. As a nation, on Memorial Day, later this month, we will honor and remember the men and women who have given their lives to serve our great Nation. Every year I join in the Memorial Day ceremonies across California's San Joaquin Valley. This year I will participate in the Memorial Day ceremony at the San Joaquin Valley National Cemetery in Santa Nella. Hundreds will gather there with us. In Fresno, I will be speaking both at the Veterans Liberty Cemetery and the Avenue of Flags at Memorial Gardens. But I believe most Members of Congress weekly--I certainly do--meet with veterans. We meet to listen and to hear their concerns, as well as men and women serving in Active Duty. Last week, when I was in the district, I visited the Veterans Administration clinic in the city of Merced to listen to veterans getting their healthcare, to their concerns, to their needs, to ensure that they get the care that they deserve. And just yesterday, I spoke with a group of Valley veterans visiting Washington, D.C., through the Central Valley Honor Flight. We have these Honor Flights all across the country. It is the 16th Honor Flight in 7 years from the San Joaquin Valley. Twenty-two of them were World War II veterans, and they also served in Korea and in Vietnam. It is appropriate to say ``thank you'' to them and to those men and women we see across the country in uniform. I always remember to say ``thank you.'' As President John F. Kennedy once said: ``As we express our gratitude, we must never forget that the highest appreciation is not to utter words but to live by them.'' With these words in mind, I call on my colleagues and my fellow Americans to come together. America wants us to come together, not only during this month but throughout the year, and thank those servicemen and -women, the veterans, and their families; but also to do more than just utter words of gratitude, because we can do better. We must, and we should, work to ensure that our servicemembers, veterans, and military families receive the resources, the justice, and the benefits that they have earned. These are our true American heroes.

Mr. COSTA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today during Teacher Appreciation Week to honor America's teachers. I still know the names of my first nine teachers at the Houghton- Kearney Elementary School in Fresno County because they all made a difference in my life: Ms. Waiye, Ms. Seely, Ms. Clark, Ms. Piper, Ms. Collins, Mr. Garfield, Mr. Weens, Ms. Collins again, Mr. Reed, and Mr. Jones, our principal. Like so many teachers across our country, these educators dedicated their careers to helping generations of students learn and grow. Teachers today provide us with the tools we need to achieve our goals and to be successful because they understand dedicating their lives to this profession educates the future of America, our Nation. It creates the foundation that lies ahead that ultimately creates the opportunities that we as Americans pursue. So I would like to take this opportunity to thank the teachers in the San Joaquin Valley and across the Nation, throughout the United States, for all that they do. Those first nine teachers who taught me, they saw something in me and in thousands of students whom they have taught. You know what: they made a difference. They made a difference in thousands of lives, as teachers across the country do every day. So we should--it is fitting and appropriate--honor the teachers of our Nation. Military Appreciation Month

Mr. COSTA

Mr. COSTA. Mr. Speaker, as we in the San Joaquin Valley know, ``food grows where water flows.'' We also know the ravages of drought and are the first communities in California to experience drought's harmful effects. For over 30 years, I have worked to strengthen water supply reliability for the San Joaquin Valley and throughout California. While I was in the California Legislature, I authored the legislation to create the Kern County Water Bank, led 2 water bonds and helped to pass 2 others, providing more than $2 billion dollars to improve California's water system and provide for safe, reliable drinking water. In Congress, I have secured approval of the Madera Irrigation District Water Bank, the San Luis Intertie, and the North Valley Regional Recycled Water Project, bringing hundreds of thousands of acre-feet of more secure water to the San Joaquin Valley. I also worked on a bipartisan basis to pass the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation, or WIIN Act, which was signed into law in December of 2016 and increased pumping flexibility to move water throughout the state and provided over $355 million dollars for water infrastructure projects, including matching federal funds for new surface storage in California. In all of my time working to improve the lives of the people of the Valley, rarely have I been presented with a project with such obvious potential as raising the spillway gates at New Exchequer Dam. Water impounded behind New Exchequer Dam provides irrigation water for agriculture in Merced County, groundwater replenishment for several nearby communities, and environmental benefits for fisheries and wildlife refuges downstream of the dam. Recently, Merced Irrigation District performed a detailed analysis of the hydrology of the watershed upstream of New Exchequer Dam and found that by raising the spillway gates 8 feet, Lake McClure could hold an additional 57,000 acre-feet without impeding the Merced River's Wild and Scenic River designation. However, in order to move forward with raising the spillway gates, the flood control and operations manual for New Exchequer Dam must be updated, a responsibility of the Army Corps of Engineers. Unfortunately, this manual is based on data that dates back to 1959, when New Exchequer Dam was being constructed. Army Corps of Engineers policy requires that flood control manuals be updated to reflect new data and changes to a project. In 2017, Merced Irrigation District wrote to the Army Corps requesting a revision of the flood control manual, which was last updated in 1981. The Army Corps indicated that it could not update the manual at this time, citing budgetary constraints. Merced Irrigation District proposed to pay for the public process to update the flood control manual to incorporate the new hydrologic data. The Army Corps responded by saying that it didn't have the legal authority to accept funds for this purpose for a non-federal Section 7 project like New Exchequer, despite being able to do so for Corps facilities. The Non-Federal Reservoir Operations Improvement Act would resolve this disparity by allowing the owners of non-federal reservoirs that are regulated by the Army Corps to contribute funds to update their flood control manuals. It's a very commonsense, targeted change to law that will improve the water supply reliability in Merced County.

Mr. COSTA

Mr. COSTA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the amendment being offered by Congressman Denham and me to H.R. 4, and I thank the gentleman for yielding. Together, we have worked long and hard to reduce the duplicative environmental permitting requirements that contribute, as we all know, to delays in delivery of important transportation projects throughout the Nation and throughout California, as both Congressman Denham and I have experienced. California remains at the forefront of finding innovative ways to streamline the transportation delivery project without compromising the natural environment and complying with environmental laws. As a matter of fact, we have a very big initiative that was passed last year to provide another $52 billion in construction projects over the next 10 years. So this is an important amendment. In 2015, Congress passed the FAST Act, which implemented a pilot program to provide reciprocity for environmental permitting for States like California that have laws that provide equal or greater environmental protection. That is the case with California. That is why this amendment is so applicable and why it makes such good common sense. This amendment would further streamline the delegation process, as the gentleman noted, reduce project delivery times and costs, lead to more projects being constructed at a faster rate, and improve our deteriorating infrastructure. For all these good reasons, we ought to adopt this amendment. I urge my colleagues to concur.

Mr. COSTA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding. I rise today in support of this amendment offered by Mr. Denham, Mr. Cuellar, and myself. Trucking companies and truck drivers are the backbone of our Nation in terms of transportation, and certainly, much of the San Joaquin Valley that I represent. Agricultural products, fruits, nuts, and vegetables that are put on American's dinner tables every night are grown in the San Joaquin Valley, and they provide an important part of our sustenance. Many of these truckers have one or two trucks, and they are literally small-business people. Sadly, because of the recent court decisions that were noted by the author of this amendment, these companies that operate across State lines have been exposed to unfair litigation that have been costly, and I know of cases where major motor carriers have gone out of business because of this. The amendment would clarify that when operating across State lines, meals and rest break requirements will be governed by Federal law, not a patchwork of conflicting State laws. That just makes good common sense. This is consistent with action taken by the Congress--as was noted--in 1994, to provide uniform rules across the country for safety purposes. Some of my colleagues have claimed time in opposition saying this amendment would overturn protections like minimum wage and vacation. This amendment in no way impacts minimum wage or vacation, or those issues that have been raised in this fashion. It is simply not true. This amendment, I believe, is prosafety, proworker, and proeconomy. The fact is, we have been dealing with this issue for a number of years, and it is time that we finally avoid the confusion and strengthen this measure out. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. COSTA

Mr. COSTA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I join with Congressman Jeff Denham and Congressman Jimmy Panetta to celebrate a life well lived. Rick Antle was truly an icon in not only California agriculture but American agriculture. He was a leader. Rick and Tonya always put their family first, and what a family it was. To be a part with them, with their children and with his father, Bob, I have fond, fond memories over the years of working together on public policy affecting California agriculture. They farmed not just in the Salad Bowl but in the San Joaquin Valley. Their efforts to bring value added and innovation is legendary in terms of the incredible food products that we enjoy today at home. His efforts with employees set the gold standard, creating housing initiatives so that the 800 employees at Tanimura & Antle would have the kind of housing that farm workers deserve to have. The list goes on and on and on, but I just wanted to join today and pay my respects to our friend Rick, and to his family. Tonya, we know this is a very difficult time for all of you, but we just want you to know that our thoughts and prayers are with you. We thank you for all of the contributions you have made over the years. Rick was a leader in California agriculture. And I just personally want to say thank you for all the good advice you have given me over the years. We will miss Rick Antle.

Mr. COSTA

Mr. COSTA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join with the Armenian community to commemorate the 103rd anniversary of the Armenian Genocide with my colleague, Congressman David Valadao. We both represent a large constituency of Armenians in the San Joaquin Valley. On April 24, 1915, the Ottoman Empire began to systematically deport and kill 1.5 million Armenians, sending them to their death. It was systematic, it was planned. But as history has shown, the Armenian people are stronger than any attack, even genocide; the first genocide in the 20th century, by the way. Many Armenians settled in California's San Joaquin Valley, where I was raised, and now I have the honor to represent. I heard their stories of their losses with their families, but I also saw their determination, their joy, and their strength, and their contributions to our community and to our Nation. The Armenian people show us that we must move forward, but we must never forget where we are from and who we are; therefore, the Congress and the President must, sooner than later, officially go on record recognizing the Armenian Genocide. Tonight, I stand with the Armenian people and commemorate their spirit. As we move forward, we must never forget.

Mr. COSTA

Mr. COSTA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to raise concerns about the farm bill that we will consider in the House Agriculture Committee tomorrow. In any legislation, there are parts of it that you support and there are areas that are problematic and there are titles that you may oppose. That is part of legislation. Some of these areas, of course, are works in progress. That is part of legislation as well. The farm bill is no exception. There are parts of this proposal that are a continuation of good things that we have done in previous farm bills that have worked. This version of the farm bill supports programs that are critical to specialty crops in the San Joaquin Valley and across California and the Nation. Specialty crops are special. They are fresh fruits and vegetables that serve as the foundation of a healthy diet. California grows half of the Nation's specialty crops. This bill also provides support for research and risk management tools that are necessary. That includes continuous support for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, a program that encourages farmers to be good stewards of our environment. It also has proposals that support programs that help our farmers, ranchers, and dairy producers expand to foreign markets so we can compete. Further, it also includes research and development of organic farming that continues to be very, very important, and it encourages a comprehensive approach to ensuring the health and security of our livestock. But we could do more in all of these areas. There are also parts of this farm bill that, for me, are problematic. As written, the dairy provisions create an uneven playing field that protects some, while leaving others exposed, sowing a regional divide within the dairy industry. Instead, we should raise the threshold for catastrophic coverage under the dairy safety net so we can respond more quickly for all dairy producers when milk markets plummet. The California dairy industry has hit hard times in recent years. Lastly, there are components of this farm bill that I strongly oppose, as do countless other organizations, people in the San Joaquin Valley and across the country. One of these proposals makes changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, otherwise known as SNAP, that will devastate parts of the food program that are working well. SNAP education and training programs are designed to help people and help recipients develop skills so ultimately they become self-reliant. I am a strong supporter of SNAP education and training programs. Although some of our SNAP education and training programs are yielding great results, we have a pilot project in Fresno County called the Fresno Bridge Academy that has expanded, and we now, as a result of the last farm bill, have 10 pilot projects around the country. In 2019, they are supposed to report back to the Congress to say what works and what doesn't work. That is the way we should be doing this so that we can get people off of assistance, make them self-sufficient. We all agree that able-bodied people should be working. Yet, this farm bill makes enrollment in the SNAP education and training program mandatory, and in many cases, without giving them the necessary tools to get real jobs that exist. We have been warned that such a strain on burgeoning programs may very well collapse, costing billions of dollars, and creating a new Federal bureaucracy. In addition, this proposal would systematically prevent people from getting food assistance that they badly need, including our disabled, our seniors, and our veterans. Twenty-five percent of my constituents are on SNAP and require food assistance. This program is vital to the health of our communities, both in rural and urban areas in every State in the Nation. The farm bill is America's food bill. It is about our national security. It is very important. It should not serve some well and abandon others. Although this proposal does include some good provisions, it fails to serve important parts of our community, and it builds a bigger and more intense divide between regions and groups in our country. Our Nation's food policy should not be something that further divides us. This part of the House farm bill proposal, I think, is bad policy. It will not succeed legislatively, nor can it be successfully implemented. The United States Senate is writing a bipartisan farm bill, and that is what we should be doing in the House. As a matter of fact, the farm bill, for over 40 years, has been one of the most bipartisan things that we do in Congress. I call upon my colleagues to work together, in a bipartisan fashion, to negotiate these differences, one that serves the widest range of Americans so that we can produce enduring good public policy decisions that serve to protect the safety net for all Americans, promote American farmers, ranchers, and dairy people so that we can not only feed the Nation but compete in foreign markets. We can do better. We should do better.

Mr. COSTA

Mr. COSTA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to make clear the dangers of a partisan farm bill that we are considering in the House Agriculture Committee this week. Bipartisanship is not simply a buzzword. Bipartisanship is vital for policies to serve the widest range of Americans. Sadly, it is in short supply these days in our Capitol. The House Agriculture Committee has, for over 40 years, traditionally been a very bipartisan committee because our Nation's food supply affects everyone: rich and poor, farmers and consumers, Democrats and Republicans alike. Our farm bill is America's food bill, and it needs to be about feeding all of us. I always say it is really a matter of our national security, yet the bill we are considering this week is, without question, a partisan farm bill. We see this in how it fails to serve key parts of our Nation and abandons many of our food insecure. A partisan farm bill is bad policy, plain and simple. It will not succeed legislatively nor can it be implemented successfully. I ask that we put aside these partisan differences, do as we have done traditionally, and work together to pass a bipartisan farm bill in the House and in the Senate that the President can sign.

Mr. COSTA

Mr. COSTA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this imperfect balanced budget amendment, and let me say why. This week, the Congressional Budget Office released the annual Budget and Economic Outlook. It estimates that the trillion dollar annual deficits will return in only 2 years. This represents the largest deficit in 6 years, and is 84 percent of increased spending over last year. Today, our national debt is over $21 trillion, and approximately, for each individual American, $174,000-plus per taxpayer. Outrageous. And that is simply the debt on the budget. When accounting for off-budget debt, things like unfunded pension obligations, projected spending increases in the social safety net programs, baby boomers retirement from the workforce, and actual debt is actually much greater. In order to make our budget sustainable, we must decrease deficits by $379 billion every year for the next 75 years. Sadly, we are not even coming close to this. In fact, we are going in the opposite direction. History shows us that nations and empires usually fail when the cost of serving their debt exceeds the cost of defending their borders. If we continue down this path, America could be spending more on the debt interest payments than we do on our national defense within 5 years. However, as serious as this issue is to the future of our country and future generations, no one can possibly take this vote seriously, and let me tell you why. We are voting on a balanced budget amendment because my Republican friends passed, on a party-line vote, a deficit finance tax cut that will result in $2.2 trillion in additional borrowing over the next 10 years. Therefore, this is nothing more than a fig leaf, and it is the height of hypocrisy. What we should be doing is voting on a balanced budget amendment that Stephanie Murphy has put forth that protects commitments our Nation has made to current generations by protecting social safety net programs like Medicare and Social Security from cuts. But we are not allowed that choice, and yet, we must get our fiscal house in order. I am one of 38 Members that voted for the Simpson-Bowles Act. Talk about lack of profiles in courage. Let me make an observation, after being here 14 years, and that is that the rhetoric that we see in this debate and that we have seen in past debates on our budget deficit does not comport to the hard realities of choices that we have to make. It is that simple. After 14 years in Congress, it is my view that this will only happen when Republicans and Democrats come together to make hard choices to agree on long-term revenues that are in line with our expenditures. It is not a difficult concept to understand. We have got to think of hard- line revenues that are going to be in line with our expenditures. But we are not willing to do that. So this balanced budget amendment, while not perfect, I am going to vote for it because I think it is a step to keep the debate going and, ultimately, hopefully, will allow us to sit down in a bipartisan fashion to make the hard decisions that Americans expect us to make. That is why we have been sent here.

Mr. COSTA

Mr. COSTA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to join me in fostering further investment in our United States economy by one of our oldest allies, Portugal. As a co-chair of the Congressional Portuguese Caucus, I am proud to join Congressmen Cicilline and Valadao in leading the AMIGOS Act, which will make Portuguese citizens eligible for E1 and E2 visas. These visas allow individuals to enter the United States to conduct substantial trade or invest a substantial amount of capital, which spurs investment in our economy and helps create jobs. That is, after all, what we do with our friends, with our allies. In 2015 alone, between Portugal and the United States, there was $4.2 billion in trade. That created jobs here in the United States. It creates jobs in Portugal. It is good for both countries, and that is the way friends ought to work together. There is precedent here. Congress granted eligibility for Israel in 2012 with the E1 and E2 visas, which allow for easier access for businesspeople who are engaged in these kinds of economic activities. What is more, Portugal was one of the first countries to recognize the United States after we declared our independence and won the Revolutionary War. For many of us, if we remember our history, after World War II, to defend Western democracies, Portugal, along with the United States, helped organize Western Europe to create NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, that has been the bulwark of defense of Western ideals that are the foundation of our democracies. For these reasons and more, I call upon my colleagues to join me in supporting a commonsense, bipartisan piece of legislation, the AMIGOS Act, which will further opportunities for business in America by creating more jobs and continue to enhance the relationship that has existed for over 200 years between the United States and Portugal.

Mr. COSTA

Mr. COSTA. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak about Russian interference in our elections. In the last 18 months, the United States intelligence agencies and our allies abroad have decisively concluded that Russia interfered with our elections. We have sworn testimony from men and women with impeccable records, Democrats and Republicans alike. Their testimony overwhelmingly states that Russia interfered in our elections and that Russia has done so as well in other Western democracies for years. Russia's goal with election interference is to destabilize Western democracies. Destabilizing our democracy will weaken our ability to defend ourselves against foreign adversaries like Russia, China, and Iran. Democratic institutions and systems are the foundation of how we govern ourselves and defend our borders. When the integrity of democratic institutions is doubted, the power of our democracy is weakened. Make no mistake: attacking the integrity of our democratic institutions is an attempt to weaken our Nation and our way of life. We must ensure that neither Russia nor any other foreign power interferes in our election process in the future. The House of Representatives seems to have abdicated its official role in investigating Russian interference. It is my hope that the Senate will continue its investigation in a bipartisan manner. Thus, Special Counsel Robert Mueller must be allowed to continue his investigation, following the evidence wherever it leads, and write a comprehensive and complete report without intrusion or obstruction by political power plays. This is not a Democratic or Republican issue. This is an American issue. Mr. Speaker, as Members of Congress, our first responsibility is to protect our Nation. We take an oath of office every 2 years to defend and protect our Nation from all enemies, foreign and domestic. I call upon my colleagues, my fellow Americans, to join me in putting partisanship aside, putting our country first, and doing everything we can to prevent foreign interference in our elections in the future. Tariffs and Trade

Mr. COSTA. Mr. Speaker, I also rise today to speak about U.S. trade and the recently raised tariffs on steel and aluminum. We all want to secure American jobs and increase the opportunity in the U.S. economy, but raising far-reaching tariffs will do just the opposite. The most likely effect of raising tariffs will be other countries adjusting their trade measures to protect their economies and their workers. This is known as a trade war, and no one wins in a trade war. What's more, American agriculture is always the target of international reactionary and retaliatory trade behavior. California agriculture, which I am a strong advocate of and represent, feels the most intense direct pain from these tariffs. California farmers and ranchers earned roughly 44 percent of their total revenue from international trade in 2016. But this pain will radiate across the country. Manufacturers, processors, merchants, and farmers will face negative impacts to their businesses as foreign markets close, which will cost both American jobs and profits. Yes, we have an international trade imbalance that must be addressed, but raising these tariffs, I think, is the wrong strategy, plain and simple. This is why both Republicans and Democrats have publicly expressed grave concern with these recent actions. The way to address these trade imbalances is to successfully renegotiate and modernize NAFTA and other trade agreements with our European allies. The President and Congress must work together on trade agreements; it is that simple. Our best approach for successfully renegotiating trade agreements in a way that serves the entire Nation is by Republicans and Democrats coming together and putting in the hard work required for bipartisan negotiations, serious policymaking, and getting the job done. That is what we are supposed to do.

Mr. COSTA

Mr. COSTA. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to be present for roll call votes on March 15, 2018 as I had to return to California to attend a funeral. Had I been present, I would have voted: ``YES'' on Roll Call Vote No. 109, ``YES'' on Roll Call Vote No. 110, ``YES'' on Roll Call Vote No. 111, ``YES'' on Roll Call Vote No. 112, ``NO'' on Roll Call Vote No. 113, and ``NO'' on Roll Call Vote No. 114.

Mr. COSTA

Mr. COSTA. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, the United States, as we know, is a nation of immigrants, past and present. For hundreds of years, people have come to our shores in search of a better life for themselves and for their children. Immigrants from across the world have made incredible contributions to our country. We know that as fact. From starting businesses to healing the sick, to harvesting our fields and putting food on America's dinner table, to ensuring safety and pursuing justice, immigrants have made America a great nation because of their contributions. Yet there have been times when our Nation has struggled to live up to our own ideals, and right now, I think, is one of those times. This week, the President's deadline, March 5, 2 days past, to end the DACA program took effect, threatening hundreds of thousands of lives of Dreamers. Now, let us remember, this is because of President Trump's unilateral action last September to repeal DACA that we are in the position that we are in today. Mr. Speaker, I am standing here with the Dreamers, with over 80 percent of Americans, and with many of my colleagues who believe we ought to fix this problem. I ask Speaker Ryan and I call upon this Chamber to vote now on the bipartisan, bicameral Dream Act. This bill would provide permanent legislative protections for our Dreamers, immigrants who were brought to the United States' shores as children at the average age of 6 years. For them, America is the only country they have ever known. The Dream Act will provide these young people with legal status and, ultimately, a path to citizenship. In my district, there are thousands of DACA recipients, thousands of Dreamers, currently, over 600 at the University of California, Merced, and more than that at my alma mater, Fresno State. President Castro at Fresno State and I had a meeting with a group of Dreamers recently. Let me tell you about one student whom I met, who would be helped by the Dream Act, Rodolfo. What a story he had to tell, along with the other students. Rodolfo came to the United States with his mother and siblings when he was 4 years old, at great risk. He is set to graduate from Fresno State with a degree in chemistry this year. DACA gave him the ability to work through school and help his family. And after all, isn't that the immigrant way? Just last week, Rodolfo got some great news. He learned that he was admitted to the University of California, San Francisco's School of Pharmacy, one of the best schools in the Nation. His dream as a Dreamer is to use his education and skills to give back to our communities by providing healthcare to underserved communities. Rodolfo, we want Dreamers like you here in the United States. There are over 800,000 of you, all contributing and giving. Many of you serve in our armed services today. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to bring the Dream Act to the floor for a vote. Support this legislation. They should not be held hostage for other agendas that are out there, and clearly this is the case. This is common sense. I ask my colleagues to do the right thing. Let's bring the Dream Act to the floor as soon as we can.

Mr. COSTA

Mr. COSTA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call for the support of the Hmong Veterans' Service Recognition Act. This bipartisan legislation extends veterans' burial benefits to Hmong and Laotian-American veterans who fought in the United States Armed Forces during the Vietnam war. These brave men and women risked their lives fighting alongside American servicemen and -women as soldiers in the Special Guerilla Units, otherwise known as SGUs. The SGUs were covertly trained by the CIA during the Vietnam war and then led into direct combat support for American forces, yet they have never been recognized for their service, which is why I introduced the legislation with Congressman Paul Cook, himself a decorated Vietnam veteran, who was a colonel in the United States Army and knows their story well. There are only an estimated 5,000 Hmong veterans still alive today, with thousands of them in the San Joaquin Valley that I represent. We extended this honor to Filipino soldiers years ago. I ask that we honor these courageous individuals with their choice of being laid to rest next to their brothers in arms. It is the right thing to do.

Mr. COSTA

Mr. COSTA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about the challenges that we face, not only in my constituency as it relates to California agriculture, but a host of other issues as well. We are in the process of trying to reauthorize the farm bill, something we do every 4 years. It used to be--and we hope it will continue this year--one of the more bipartisan efforts we are engaged in. I represent not only the heartland of the San Joaquin Valley, but third-generation farmer. Last week--as I do every weekend when I go home--I was walking the rows of the almond trees on my ranch outside of Fresno, California. They are beautiful. They are in full bloom this time of year. There is not a time, though, in the year, in the San Joaquin Valley, where the incredible bounty of the 300 crops that we grow are not on display because they are always out there. The blossoms in the spring grow into the almonds, walnuts, and pistachios until late summer. Tomatoes are harvested in August and September, followed by cotton in October and November. The dairymen and dairy processors work every day because those cows have to be milked every day year-round to produce the finest quality milk, cheese, and butter. As I walked through my orchard, I remembered the countless stories and insights by my fellow California farmers, ranchers, dairymen and - women shared with me over the past year, and I think about my father, who farmed all of his life, and my grandfather. In anticipation of the 2018 farm bill, I have held round tables and listening sessions, attended agriculture townhalls, and met with our farmers and farm workers, who, every day, work so hard to put those food products on America's dinner table. I have done this to hear firsthand the concerns and priorities of our local producers, farm workers, and nutrition organizations regarding our Nation's food supply. I have also had numerous meetings with key agriculture and trade officials, including Agriculture Secretary Perdue, who has been out to California a number of times. And as we in Congress move together with farm bill negotiations, we must maintain strong support for the cultivation and production of fresh fruits and vegetables, which are the foundation of a healthy diet. California produces over half of the Nation's fruits and vegetables. It is truly amazing. Three hundred crops. We must also make sure that we do not abandon our Nation's most vulnerable through inhumane cuts to the nutrition programs that provide a steady source of food to our Nation's food supply. We are talking about our safety net, we are talking about the SNAP program, and we are talking about Women, Infants, and Children. This has been part of the glue on a bipartisan basis that has kept Democrats and Republicans together in the reauthorization of the farm bill. But we must have a safety net for those who are most unfortunate in our society. We should work to expand foreign markets for our products and to incentivize sound conservation practices and research. Research is very important to ensure the sustainability. Sustainability is critical--and continued growth of American agriculture. We have the opportunity with the farm bill to address the crippling agriculture labor crisis afflicting our farms, and it must be addressed as we look at a broken immigration system that not only impacts our Dreamers--the DACA program--but a reliable supply of farm labor. These are all among the issues that we must address to ensure that our Nation's food supply is reliable, because, guess what, it is a national security issue. People don't look at it that way. People go into the grocery store and they think: Well, what is the problem; grocery stores have all the food in the world. They go to the restaurants, and they have all the food that you need. But the food doesn't go to the grocery store or to those restaurants without it being grown by America's men and women who labor--less than 3 percent of the Nation's population--to produce the finest, highest quality, greatest yield, most nutritious food anywhere in the world, every night on America's dinner table. That is why we must come together--Democrats and Republicans--to improve our Nation's food supply by passing a strong, bipartisan farm bill. Fifth Anniversary of Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act